Great Bay's health needs a balanced approach

Friday

Sep 30, 2011 at 3:15 AMSep 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM

In a recent email to members of the City Council and this newspaper Dover City Manager Mike Joyal very succinctly explained what is at stake should the EPA mandate the cleanup plan which is currently on the fed's drawing board for Great Bay.

The numbers which follow come from a report prepared by Russ Thibeault of Applied Economic Research for the Great Bay Coalition communities of Rochester, Durham, Newmarket, Exeter, Portsmouth and Dover. The report looks at the economic impact for the potential range of EPA mandated wastewater treatment plant upgrades being considered as part of upcoming discharge permit renewals.

Foster's Daily Democrat believes these numbers speak for themselves and support calls for a closer look at all factors contributing to the decline of the Great Bay Estuary.

— The coalition communities alone will have to invest between $74 million and $160 million on their treatment plants to meet the possible nitrogen discharge standards;

— The coalition communities alone will experience annual incremental costs (debt service plus incremental operating costs) of $13 million to $25 million per year (measured in constant 2010 dollars) to meet the possible discharge standards;

— This annual cost averages about $300-$500 per household served by the municipal waste water treatment plant systems;

— This annual cost represents a 50 percent to 100 percent increase in current annual costs per household, measured over the six coalition communities;

— Measured over the 20-year expected life of the wwtp upgrades, the total economic costs (including principal, interest, operating costs, calculated lost revenues, etc.) are $400-$700 million — $11,000-20,000 per household served;

While these numbers are staggering, what is even more troubling is that the EPA's potential mandate fails to address pollution beyond the public waste water systems of these communities.

It is estimated, writes Joyal, "that 70% of the targeted nutrient loading entering Great Bay comes from a much wider array of nonpoint sources such as storm run-off, residential septic systems, lawn care products and agricultural operations found in all communities surrounding the estuary and not just the few hosting wwtp's."

Thankfully, the communities involved have joined together to study the issue themselves. Hopefully this information along with bipartisan support in Concord and from the New Hampshire congressional delegation will persuade the EPA to hold off until a more sensible and cost effective plan is devised to save the Great Bay.

The issue is not, as some have argued, letting Great Bay rot away. Rather, it is balancing need with cost, and addressing the wider range of factors threatening the bay's health.